Maury Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me it's clear something needs to be done to lower the at risk percentage at Miner. I understand the objections to the cluster, but you can make similar objections to any proposal.

It feels like a lot of people are basically arguing for the status quo, which means Miner remains a school with a lot of at risk kids who it ultimately fails.

It feels like no matter what is proposed, it will be rejected as infeasible, and nothing will change.

OK word police of DCUM. Why is it ok for PP say the % of at risk needs to be lowered at Miner but it isn't ok for Maury parents to be concerned about an increase in at risk? In the former at risk is a problem to be solved and a net negative to the school's trajectory? I'll wait.

Because Maury parents 'being concerned about an increase in at risk' is just projection. My kids are at Miner. They are at or above grade level and have done just fine. The mere presence of at risk kids in their classroom has had no effect on their learning.

Yes it will eventually. No teacher can successfully differentiate math in a class where 25 kids get PARCC 1 and 5 kids get PARCC 4/5.

My kids' teachers successfully do this daily. That breakdown is actually pretty easy because kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC do great with some focused small-group attention and then being left to practice what they've learned on their own, leaving the teacher to focus on the kids scoring a 1. Plus a classroom with a lot of kids getting 1s also likely has a high number of IEPs, which will mean lots of push ins and pull outs for services to support that, meaning more help in the classroom and also opportunities to work with smaller groups.

A tougher break down would be 20 kids scoring 3, 5 scoring 4/5, and 5 scoring 1/2. What happens in that room is everything gets taught to the 3s, the 4/5s get some small group attention and do fine, and then the 1/2s flounder because they can't keep up with the instruction to the 3s but they aren't getting anywhere close to the amount of attention needed to bring them up to grade level.

My PARCC 4 kid actually needs a lot of attention. You’re just proving the point when you say “Hey the grade-level kids can just teach themselves! They don’t need attention.” At a certain point parents clue into the fact that their friends’ and relatives’ kids at higher performing schools are just learning more and being prepared better for HS and college. Then “oh Larla doesn’t actually need to be taught!” starts to feel a lot less true.

Where did I say kids scoring 4/5 don't need to be taught? A group of 5 kids who are scoring 4/5 on PARCC is an ideal small-group size. Have you ever taught? With that size group, you can craft small group lessons that meet their needs, give them group projects to work on collaboratively, plus track their progress against one another in ways that can help motivate and push them further.

Sure, if you have a whole classroom of 4/5s, you can do more of this. But this is public school, they take all comers. Private schools restrict admissions and counsel out kids so they can keep the mean as high as possible and pat themselves on the back for it. Public schools have to teach everyone. Sorry? Save up for private.

Also, at Miner I would worry about the fact that you might have a classroom with 22 kids scoring a 1 or a 2, and maybe 1 or 2 kids scoring a 3 or a 4. That set up is likely going to screw over the higher performing kids, who still need attention and help, but the teacher will be overwhelmed trying o give remedial instruction. But if you can even out that classroom a bit so that there are just 7 or 8 kids scoring 1s and 2s, and then you find some peers for the kids doing better, it makes the teachers job easier because it's possible to great groups and offer more differentiated instruction for those kids.

But didn't some parents just chime in saying that their high performing kids were in that set up and were learning fine?

I'm one of the posters you are referring to and my kids are in classes where there are consistently 4-7 kids who are at or above grade level -- I would be concerned about a classroom environment where my kid was the only one at or above grade level, but that has not been my experience at our Title 1 (which as I stated before, is not Miner).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that he's a total hypocrite. Why is it that people like you think only your way of looking at the world can be right? You are so convinced of your moral clarity and superiority that you don't for a minute consider that someone with divergent views is entitled to theirs. I didn't know Billy was a product of lily white private schools until it was explained to me. That's relevant for me. But I guess I don't get an opinion if doesn't conform to those of the Woke mob?

+1. Ironically, PP can't see their own myopia while accusing others of being myopic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

I haven't heard any Maury families advocating for no changes at Maury to increase the number of at-risk students. I've heard skepticism of the cluster model.

PP here. I actively oppose the cluster model and have been posting on this thread about how Maury families should try to coalesce around an alternative plan that would still diversify Maury socioeconomically but ISN'T the cluster, so they can advocate for as a valid alternative and at least force the DME to consider both plans, but people keeping telling me to "prove" that increasing the percentage of at-risk kids at Maury is necessary/good/would benefit Maury, etc. My point is that the DME doesn't have to prove this. They can just say that the discrepancy in at-risk enrollment between the two schools is inequitable, and they can take steps to equalize enrollments on that premise. The problem is they've settled on the cluster as the solution, which is why I'd be asking lots of questions about why a boundary redraw isn't being considered.

I don't know that they've "settled" on the cluster as the solution. They keep saying that it is just an idea they are throwing out to see if it is viable. I don't see any real indication that they would move forward to recommend a plan that has significant problems just because they don't have other ideas. No one thinks they have to fix every problem they identify in one boundary review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

I haven't heard any Maury families advocating for no changes at Maury to increase the number of at-risk students. I've heard skepticism of the cluster model.

PP here. I actively oppose the cluster model and have been posting on this thread about how Maury families should try to coalesce around an alternative plan that would still diversify Maury socioeconomically but ISN'T the cluster, so they can advocate for as a valid alternative and at least force the DME to consider both plans, but people keeping telling me to "prove" that increasing the percentage of at-risk kids at Maury is necessary/good/would benefit Maury, etc. My point is that the DME doesn't have to prove this. They can just say that the discrepancy in at-risk enrollment between the two schools is inequitable, and they can take steps to equalize enrollments on that premise. The problem is they've settled on the cluster as the solution, which is why I'd be asking lots of questions about why a boundary redraw isn't being considered.

I don't know that they've "settled" on the cluster as the solution. They keep saying that it is just an idea they are throwing out to see if it is viable. I don't see any real indication that they would move forward to recommend a plan that has significant problems just because they don't have other ideas. No one thinks they have to fix every problem they identify in one boundary review.

The level of focus on Miner and Maury is high enough that I would absolutely assume that they plan to "fix" it during this boundary review. No, they don't have to, but if you really don't want a cluster, I would not be complacent.

The paltry attendance at the town hall this week is concerning because while the DME acknowledged that reception to the cluster idea has been negative, the absence of more vocal opposition, especially in public forums, could be precisely the excuse the mayor/DME need to push it through if they decide it's the right fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that he's a total hypocrite. Why is it that people like you think only your way of looking at the world can be right? You are so convinced of your moral clarity and superiority that you don't for a minute consider that someone with divergent views is entitled to theirs. I didn't know Billy was a product of lily white private schools until it was explained to me. That's relevant for me. But I guess I don't get an opinion if doesn't conform to those of the Woke mob?

+1. Ironically, PP can't see their own myopia while accusing others of being myopic.

It looks like he popped in to post a link to some statistics. That it makes you somehow feel attacked and inferior is your own deal. I think the term you all use for that is 'snowflake'. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that he's a total hypocrite. Why is it that people like you think only your way of looking at the world can be right? You are so convinced of your moral clarity and superiority that you don't for a minute consider that someone with divergent views is entitled to theirs. I didn't know Billy was a product of lily white private schools until it was explained to me. That's relevant for me. But I guess I don't get an opinion if doesn't conform to those of the Woke mob?

+1. Ironically, PP can't see their own myopia while accusing others of being myopic.

It looks like he popped in to post a link to some statistics. That it makes you somehow feel attacked and inferior is your own deal. I think the term you all use for that is 'snowflake'. Is that right?

This. Billy basically advocated for integrated schools and offered some backing for this viewpoint, and the response was "you're wrong! you went to private school! you're a hypocrite." Like just an extremely outside reaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

It also only involved changing the school from 5% to 20% at-risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

that articled doesn’t come close to describing the cluster plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that he's a total hypocrite. Why is it that people like you think only your way of looking at the world can be right? You are so convinced of your moral clarity and superiority that you don't for a minute consider that someone with divergent views is entitled to theirs. I didn't know Billy was a product of lily white private schools until it was explained to me. That's relevant for me. But I guess I don't get an opinion if doesn't conform to those of the Woke mob?

+1. Ironically, PP can't see their own myopia while accusing others of being myopic.

It looks like he popped in to post a link to some statistics. That it makes you somehow feel attacked and inferior is your own deal. I think the term you all use for that is 'snowflake'. Is that right?

This. Billy basically advocated for integrated schools and offered some backing for this viewpoint, and the response was "you're wrong! you went to private school! you're a hypocrite." Like just an extremely outside reaction.

No, he popped into the thread to lecture Maury parents as racist for having reservations about the cluster with Miner. Meanwhile he lotteried his own kids out of Miner to LT! And went to private school. The hypocrisy is instructive and can be found with almost every scold. Joe Weedon most famously!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

The article is like a point-by-point guide to this thread. AND their plan involved actual busing because they were shifting kids around between high school triangles, not just fussing with two elementaries that feed to the same MS and HS.

It also only involved changing the school from 5% to 20% at-risk.

Not quite accurate. It involved re-balancing schools where one had a <5% at risk rate and the other had a 40%+ at risk rate. Shifting kids between them with the goal to reach a middle ground. It actually has a lot in common with both the problem the cluster plan is proposed to address and the similar goals.

But HoCo was looking at busing over 7000 kids to schools further away than their IB high school to achieve it. You really want to tell me that this was less "drastic" and disruptive than combining two elementaries with the same MS/HS feed? No.

Maury is NOT special here. This is a very common story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey all. Billy Lynch here, your local fair housing attorney who specializes in housing and school integration. Thought I’d drop some evidenced-based research into this riveting anonymous discussion. TLDR- integrated schools help all students and do not affect white student performance.

http://school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityResearchBriefNo10.pdf

Integrationists in this thread: I see you and applaud you.

Ok Billy: #1. Maury IS integrated
#2. There will never be enough white students in DCPS to integrate it
#3. There is no evidence that this particular change will help at-risk kids
#4. Integration could happen if DCPS adopted a voluntary approached that considered the IB parents preferences, but for some reason this is considered verboten
#5. Where do your kids go to school?

#6. Gonzaga (where Billy went to high school) is private and 75% white
#7. Loyola Chicago (where Billy went to undergrad) is private and 7% AA
#8. Catholic (where Billy went to law school) is private, 70% white and 6% AA
#9. Harvard Kennedy School (where Billy was a Fellow)...well, you know

By all means, Billy. Lecture us some more from your glass house and pristine throne.

No matter how this school decision shakes out you will still be the loser who took the time to pull this personal information.

Also, my take away from that is that the person in question might recognize that his education was severely lacking specifically because of how not diverse his experience was, and might be looking to rectify that for his kids. I attended very diverse K-12 schools and a diverse state flagship university, but then attended an "elite" law school where for the first time in my life I encountered a large population of people who had never attended public schools and had very little experience with people from less privileged backgrounds than their own. My perception is that these folks were/are very myopic and lacked some basic understanding about how the world works. So if one such person might choose to give his kids a different experience, I am personally very supportive of that.

I also think punishing a PP who chose to drop anonymity specifically to have a more open discussion in this way is incredibly counterproductive. Notice that not a single person has taken him up on his offer to discuss his family's experience at Miner -- they don't care. Instead all questions have been personal questions about his kid and his background. And most haven't been questions at all, just attacks lobbed from behind the safety of anonymity.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You won't be, I know, you don't have to tell me. But you should be.

That is one way to look at it. Another way is that he's a total hypocrite. Why is it that people like you think only your way of looking at the world can be right? You are so convinced of your moral clarity and superiority that you don't for a minute consider that someone with divergent views is entitled to theirs. I didn't know Billy was a product of lily white private schools until it was explained to me. That's relevant for me. But I guess I don't get an opinion if doesn't conform to those of the Woke mob?

+1. Ironically, PP can't see their own myopia while accusing others of being myopic.

It looks like he popped in to post a link to some statistics. That it makes you somehow feel attacked and inferior is your own deal. I think the term you all use for that is 'snowflake'. Is that right?

This. Billy basically advocated for integrated schools and offered some backing for this viewpoint, and the response was "you're wrong! you went to private school! you're a hypocrite." Like just an extremely outside reaction.

No, he popped into the thread to lecture Maury parents as racist for having reservations about the cluster with Miner. Meanwhile he lotteried his own kids out of Miner to LT! And went to private school. The hypocrisy is instructive and can be found with almost every scold. Joe Weedon most famously!

Ok! We get it! Why don’t you share where you went to school so we can vet you for authenticity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a truth that I think some folks need to wrap their heads around:

If you send your kids to public schools in a district with 46% at risk kids, you are not entitled to a school with 12% at risk kids even if you buy IB for one. They can move the kids around.

No, this does not mean I think DC should try to achieve perfect demographic equity across all schools -- that's obviously not possible geographically and would be bad policy.

However, the idea that Maury families *deserve* to keep their at risk percentage as low as it is because they bought homes there, is false. Boundaries change all the time in school districts. These boundary studies are actually regularly scheduled and the whole point is to evaluate imbalances in the district, whether it's population imbalances leading to over- and under-subscribed schools (which, by the way, also exists between Maury and Miner, though technically Maury is not yet overcrowded), or imbalances in at-risk kids, racial segregation, etc. There's no perfect solutions, but all school districts regularly evaluate school boundaries and shift them to achieve both practical and value-based goals.

This is not an endorsement of the cluster, which I think is an impractical solution. But people on this thread keep demanding that others *prove* that it's necessary to move at risk kids to Maury, like you need to prove it will improve Maury or be better for the at risk kids. You don't. The district can just say "we've got this school with a ton of at-risk kids and this one nearby with hardly any, we're gonna balance that out a bit." Happens all the time. This is public school.

Maury response: "Oh yeah well what grade is YOUR kid in?"

Lol, exactly.

The funny thing to me about this is that there's a perception that this conversation is unique and that these argument against any changes to Maury are original and specific to this proposal.

Nope. I mentioned upthread the fact that Howard County regularly shifts school boundaries and rebalances zones (more aggressively than many districts even) and that people complain but also it's just accepted that it's how it is. I didn't share to directly compare DCPS and HoCo schools (obviously very different), but to explain that this conversation is COMMON. These arguments people are making about how if Maury has too many at risk kids, it will ruin the educations of the higher SES kids there without benefiting the at-risk kids? This is the #1 most common argument made to oppose boundary shifts that will move more poor kids into schools with mostly MC and UMC kids. Like some of these comments are verbatim what I've heard at meetings to discuss boundary shifts in other districts.

Please send an example from HoCo that involved such drastic changes including merging two disparate schools into two wholly new schools. HoCo’s demographics are far different from DCPS and they can make tweaks that are much less forced and drastic.

Good lord, do you even read the news. This was 4 years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/us/howard-county-school-redistricting.html

that articled doesn’t come close to describing the cluster plan.

Do you have basic comprehension problems? No one said it did. I was asked for an example from HoCo involving "such drastic changes" as merging "two disparate schools." Trust me, the families in HoCo who opposed this plan (which was enacted with some tweaks, btw) definitely felt that business their kids two miles away to go to a totally different HS with a very different socioeconomic and racial make up to their "home" school was drastic.

In any case, all the arguments in this thread were prevalent in that fight -- the complaints about commutes, the accusation that they were trying to "ruin" good schools, parents claiming that they weren't really arguing about keeping their own kids school white/wealthy but were REALLY worried about the impact on the at risk kids, you name it.

This fight has been had a million times across the country, it is part of sending kids to public schools, you need to get over yourselves.